ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009509
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Systems Manager | Health Service Provider |
Representatives | Independent Advisor |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00012455-001 | 13/07/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/12/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [, and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969] following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The claimant is employed as a Clinical Analyst with the respondent company and is aggrieved with the respondent’s failure to appropriately process a business case under a public service circular to ensure that he gets the appropriate rate for his job.The claimant commenced employment in 1987 initially as an experienced nurse and was assigned as Systems Manager in 2010 – this work involves project management , overseeing and implementing the strategic vision and mission for ICT at one of the respondent’s major sites , “ in the context of the geographical location , the region , the group , the respondent and cross border”. It was submitted that the circular being relied upon by the claimant was specifically designed to compensate employees of the respondent who had taken on roles and responsibilities of former colleagues who had left the employment under various incentivised schemes.It was submitted that the claimant was working in a post that formerly had a recognised higher rate of pay and he had taken on project management roles of former colleagues Ms.MB and Ms.BS. It was submitted that the respondent’s line manager availed of the circular to correct an administrative error on the site’s system which had categorised the claimant as a nursing grade as opposed to an administrative grade.In 2009 the claimant had been notified by the then HR manager that he had been permanently appointed to a Grade VI administrative position .Consequently , it was submitted that when the claimant received notification from the HR Group Director in June 2014 that he had been regularised under the circular he was very pleased – however , he then discovered that he had been regularised into his substantive post at Grade VI level – which had been processed for permanency in 2009. The claimant contended that the business case was misused to correct an error in his classification rather than resolve the appropriate rate of pay for the job.The claimant was aggrieved with this outcome and the reference in the business case to deskilling and a chronology of the subsequent processing of this grievance was set out.The respondent’s response did acknowledge “ the inequity of reward in relation to people fulfilling the same role in higher grades in other hospitals “ and that in principle the claimant could make a good case.The outcome was appealed but no formal response to the appeal ensued.It was submitted that the failure to utilise the circular resulted in the claimant incurring significant financial losses while the respondent continues to utilise the claimant’s skills and efforts – it was submitted that the option of job evaluation as proposed by the respondent was unacceptable given the losses incurred. It was submitted that the claimant had been seeking regarding since 2015 – it was argued that equal pay is an impied term in all contracts of employment and that the claimant was entitled to the same rate of pay as his colleagues who were graded at Grade VII.It was advanced that the respondent knew the correct rate for the job and that accordingly a job evaluation was not required. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent set out a chonology of the claimant’s employment history with the respondent and clarified that the claimant was currently on the max of the Grade VI scale.A profile of the various sites managed by the respondent and bed numbers was presented.It was submitted that there were varying arrangements for managing IT services at the various locations and it was explained that the claimant had responsibility for part of the IT services with systems services being managed by a different team of IT specialists within the site and on line with shared services.It was advanced that there were a variety of different scenarios in the various locations and consequently it was difficult to make a comparison. A profile of the IT services at the claimant’s location was presented and it was advanced that Ms.BS Grade VII left in 2005 under a Scheme which precluded back filling and Ms.MB Grade VII was transferred in 2004. It was submitted that the claimant “ was put forward for regularisation into his position at Grade VI level at the time of regularisation , this was an error and a misunderstanding that his substantive post was still that of a nurse and not a grade VI……Following regularisation of staff under the circular in 2013 , there was an appeals mechanism entered into which finished in June 2015…. The claimant was not acting into a higher grade post into which he could be regularised.” It was contended that the job evaluation scheme was the appropriate mechanism to resolve the matter. It was submitted that concession of the claim would have serious industrial relations consequences and that the WRC did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint under Section 13 of the Act. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.]
I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noted the respective positions of the parties. Having perused the file ,I note that the respondent did not object to the investigation of the complaint by the WRC and in light of the unique nature of the specifics of this complaint I am satisfied that I have jurisdiction to examine the complaint. I am satisfied on the basis of the response from MR.P R to the claimant’s grievance dated the 17th.Jan. 2017 and on the basis of the acknowledgement by the respondent at the hearing that the work of the former Grade VII’s was divvied up and that some of the duties fell on the claimant’s shoulders that the claimant has a compelling case for upgrading.I further acknowledge the difficulties posed for the respondent during the regularisation process because they did not have a Grade VII post into which the claimant could act. I note that the claimant’s grievance has been understandably compounded by the administrative error with respect to the application of the regularisation circular to classifying the claimant as a Grade VI in circumstances where this had already been communicated to him as far back as 2009. I cannot ignore however the provisions of the collective agreement which provide for a job evaluation to determine the appropriate grading of the post.
Having regard to all of the foregoing consideration s and in light of the unique circumstances pertaining , I am recommending in full and final settlement of this dispute that the claimant be paid an acting allowance with effect from the 23rd.Oct 2015( the date of his formal request for Upgrading to the GM) , that an evaluation of his post be fast tracked with a view to having the exercise completed within 8 weeks from the date of this recommendation and that if it emerges through that process that a Grade VII is warranted that the claimant be given full recognition for incremental assimilation purposes of his service with effect from the 23rd.October 2015. |
Dated: 05.04.18
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea